HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050112ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 12, 2005
5:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Please visit 435 W. Main St. and 205 S. Mill Street on
your own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Nov. 17th and Dec. 8th
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII.
Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #3~)
OLD BUSINESS
A. 631 W. Bleeker Street - Major Development - Final, Public
Hearing (25 min.) ~ r,~¢/~,, ~
B. 435 W. Main Street - Historic Landmark Designation,
Major Development (Conceptual) and Demolition, Public
Hearing. (lhr.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 205 S. Mill Street - Minor, Public Hearing (25 min.)
X. WORKSESSION
A. 629 W. Smuggler (25 min.)
XI. ADJOURN at 7:15
.~--'.,-- "--=""""
MEMORANDUM
~
THRU:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Joyce Allg;!~eputy Community Development Director
....,
TO:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
631 W. Bleeker Street, Major Development Re.view (Final)- Public Bearing
DATE:
January 12,2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 4,500 square foot lot that was created as a result of a
Historic Landmark Lot Split. The site is vacant except for a non-historic outbuilding that has
HPC approval for demolition. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family house,
which is limited to 2,400 square feet in size.
-
'-
HPC granted Conceptual approval for this project on December 8th by a 4 to 2 vote, with the
condition that the architect eliminate an extension of the porch to the east of the front door.
Minutes of the hearing are not available yet, however there was debate amongst the commission
and it appeared that members had concerns about whether some of the forms and features of the
new house related strongly enough to the adjacent Victorian. Out of respect for HPC's
comments, the architect has simplified some roof shapes and dormer features. For final review,
the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of materials are on the table.
Staff finds that the proposed new house meets the relevant guidelines and will be a compatible
neighbor to the Victorian. The recommendation is approval of the project as submitted.
APPLICANT: Kevin Patrick, represented by Lipkin Warner Design and Planning, LLC.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-302.
ADDRESS: 631 W. Bleeker Street, Lot B, Nevitt Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of
Aspen, also known as the east \I, of Lot B and all of Lot C, Block 24, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
ZONING: R-6. Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews
the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the
_ design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to
'-
theHPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to
continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
"""
.-
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: A list of the design guidelines relevant to Final Review is attached as "Exhibit
A."
Staff finds that, in general, the new house will have an excellent relationship with the old. The
footprint, height and width are very consistent with 635 W. Bleeker. Dormers and similar roof
fonns tie the buildings together. The project includes a one story, nicely scaled garage that
addresses the alley in a very traditional way. Staff and HPC expressed concerns with the size and
placement of the front porch at the last meeting. The architect has shortened this element to
comply with a condition of Conceptual approval.
""'"
--'"
Plans for landscape and lighting have not been fully developed at this time, and will be required
conditions of approval. With regard to the other final review issues, fenestration and materials,
staffis in favor of the proposal as submitted.
The siding and roofing materials are primarily wood. There is some variety in the exposure of
the siding, and orientation, which plays off of the decorative character of the Queen Anne
architecture next door. Staff finds that the material palette and its application achieve the overall
"modest" character that is promoted in the guidelines.
The only area of discussion we would like to bring up about this project relates to the large area
of glazing at the front porch. The notion of creating a modern bay window is very appropriate,
and in addition this transparent area may relate well to the open porch on the corner of the
historic house. Staff has considered whether it may be taken a bit too far so as to be in conflict
with the following guideline:
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
o Overall, details should be modest in character.
-.
2
Our conclusion is that there are many aspects of this project that relate well to the landmarked
- house. The large front window is divided with mullions in a manner that breaks up its scale
_ appropriately. Approval is recommended.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final approval for the project with the
following standard conditions: .
-
1. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the type and location of exterior lighting
fixtures prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures.
2. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the landscape plan prior to any
installation.
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
""-
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
r
'-
o
J
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 631 W. Bleeker, Final Review"
Walkways
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
o This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in
the "private" spaces beyond.
o Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
o Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
Private Yard
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
o The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
o Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
o Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
o Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
o Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
o Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
o It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
Site Lighting
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
o Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
4
~
...;
:>
......,
Building & Roof Forms
.- 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
'." 0 Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
_.
'-
--
.......
Materials
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
o Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
o Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
Architectural Details
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape .to those of the historic
property.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
o Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
Lighting
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
o Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
o Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that
direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within
the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
o Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off
the property or into public rights-of-way.
5
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.
o Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not J
create a negative visual impact.
o Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those ofthe building itself.
o Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
o A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
o Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or
alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use
smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards,
significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.
o Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize
their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
~
-.
,,./
6
',,,~.....
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 631 WEST BLEEKER STREET, LOT B, NEVITT
HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
EAST Y, OF LOT B AND ALL OF LOT C, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-302
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin Patrick, represented by Lipkin Warner Design and Planning,
LLC, has requested Major Development Review (Final) for the property located at 631 W.
Bleeker Street, Lot B, Nevitt Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, also known as the
east Y, of Lot B and all of Lot C, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is listed
on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
-
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
'-
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 12, 2005, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 12, 2005, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application with conditions by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Final approval for 631 W. Bleeker Street, Lot B, Nevitt Historic Lot
Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, also known as the east \I, of Lot B and all of Lot C, Block 24,
City and Townsite of Aspen, as represented on January 12, 2005, with the following conditions:
--
.......
I. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the type and location of exterior lighting
fixtures prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures.
2. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the landscape plan prior to any
installation.
3. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
"""
".,..-/
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of January,
2005.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
.......
.
'.~".;/
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
--
..
..
23400 Two Rivers Rd, #44, PO Box 2239 T 970927 8473
LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING Basalt. Colorado 81621
F 9709278487
December 23, 2004
Ms. Amy Guthrie
Aspen Historical Preservation Committee
130 South Galena
Aspen Colorado 81611
Re: Patrick Residence Major HPC Development Application (Conceptual)
For Property at 631 W. Bleeker, Aspen CO
Parcell.D. #2735.124.01.302
Legal: Lot #631, Nevitt Historic Lot Split Subdivision
Dear Ms. Guthrie,
We are pleased to submit this application for Final HPC Major Development approval. We
understand our public hearing date is January 12, 2005 and we are submitting our
application today and completing our public notice by December 28, 2004.
Attached here please find all of the Application submittal requirements, including required
Fees, and all required descriptive documents to communicate the nature of our proposed
development, as listed in the HPC Application Package.
-
-
This development proposal is for a single family home with a full basement and an attached
garage. We have designed this building in strict accordance with the required guidelines for
Height, Massing, Setbacks, Floor Area, and the proper relationship to the adjacent historic
home to the west, at 635 West Bleeker. We are not requesting any variances from the
Residential Design Standards. The new home is also designed to preserve both of the large
spruce trees on the lot.
The front face of our building aligns within 18" the front face of the 635 W. Bleeker house,
though our front porch extends closer to the street; this porch is still more than the 10-foot
required front setback distance. Along the street, we have related the height of our
proposed building to the 24' height of the house at 635 W. Bleeker. In the very back of the
proposed house, the roofline goes up another four feet; this being still well below the height
limit for the lot. We have designed the garage to be the required "secondary mass" for the
lot. It is connected to the main house by a 6 foot by 10 foot "subordinate linking element" of
heated indoor space, as allowed and encouraged by the F.A.R. regulations.
As part of the Conceptual Design Approval we were given a condition, which was to shorten
the width of the front porch. This we have done by eliminating the eastern most porch bay, a
25% reduction in length. In addition to this change, we have tried to respond to comments
from some members of the Board concerning the proposed roofline in the front and back of
the house.
...~
Page 1 of3
-
-
-
....-_.._,~'---,--',,'
..
..
23400 Two Rivers Rd, #44. PO Box 2239 T 970 927 8473
LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING Basalt, Colorado 81621
F 970 927 8487
To this end we have simplified the front roof design by eliminating a dormer that sat to the
left of the main gable. There is now a simple roof from the stair gable sloping down to the
porch without interruption. Also in the front, we have lowered the eave of the two "saddle
bag" dormers by increasing their pitch. This helps to lessen the dormer scale in relation to
the primary roof forms.
In HPC discussions about the back of the house there was some concern about the two
reverse dormers we had proposed. Although there was no consensus regarding the
appropriateness regarding this type of dormer for this project, we have replaced them with
more conventional shed dormers. We are happy with the results and hope this change will
meet with your approval as well.
For siding materials we are proposing two siding types for a majority of the house. These are
used in proportions which relate to the nearby historic structure. The primary siding is a
horizontal bevel siding with a 3" exposure for an upper band around the house, and a 4"
exposure for the base of the house. This use of horizontal siding is similar to the banding
seen next door, but it avoids the more flamboyant use of specialty shingles and board
patterns of the historic structure.
--
We are also using a 5" vertical tongue and groove siding with square edges along the garage
and connector. The historic property does not have a secondary mass or an out building so
we wanted our main house to break with the garage structure by not continuing the
horizontal siding there. The smoother appearance of this siding seems an appropriate
response to an out building, which, in historical terms, would have been built for more
utilitarian purposes than the main house, and thus would have been plainer in appearance.
-
Windows, for the most part in the new house, are double hungs or double hung in
appearance. They are very much the same window in as found in the historic house. They are
vertical in proportion and are not overly divided into separate lights. We use a few small
windows in small wall expanses and in rows in larger areas. Some are sized in proportion to
their setting and others are set in alignment with the horizontal siding bands.
There are several variations to the way we use windows when compared to the historic
house. Most notably are the larger windows behind the front and back porches. These
windows recall the large bays and glass areas of the historic house. The historic bays signify
an important room inside and they present a public and proud face to the street. Our design
does the same but under slightly different circumstances. The important factor in the
historic house is the signal to the passerby that something special is happening, thus the
extra roof, windows and gingerbread to show it off. In our design we say and do much the
same without using ornament. By extending the window grid (but not necessarily the glass
area) we emphasize the porch area and the carving out of the space rather than the adding
on to it. Although we do not use the exact vocabulary as the neighbor (small entry porch to
the side and prominent bay centered below the gable) those elements are still present in our
design, not unlike a campaign button which has two alternating images.
-
Around the corner of the front porch, the grid of the window bay continues. This wrapping is
another expression of horizontal banding that we see in the siding next door. Practically
-
Page 2 00
"""'
-
-
_..,-,~~,,-,~-,,-"....,"-.........,~-....
..
..
23400 Two Rivers Rd. #44, PO Box 2239 T 970 927 8473
LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN & PLANNING Basalt. Colorado 81621
F 970 927 8487
speaking however, we use the grid along the side to create a more interesting view from the
prominent side bay of the historic house. Our hope is that the grid in this area can be used
to grow vines and vegetation to replace the view of the otherwise supplanted green lawn.
On the east side of the house there is one window exception. Here we have perhaps taken
into account the interior space more than the precise needs of the exterior. The horizontal
windows are over kitchen cabinets and are used to bring much needed light into this area of
the house. In explaining these windows we could say that there inclusion perhaps relates to
the rows of windows often employed in carriage doors occasionally built into the side of
historic structures towards the back, or perhaps they relate to the fact that unexpected
things as well as symmetry is an important part of the overall vocabulary of many of Aspen's
historic houses. There real need however, is to improve the quality of life inside. In the
overall context of this house (and the fact that they face away from the historic structure) we
believe they should not be considered a distraction to the overall design.
Thank you for your consideration of our Conceptual Application, and we look forward to
meeting with the HPC on January 12, 2005.
"",,",
Very truly yours,
/ /~)(>llt"(
David Warner
Arch itect
.,/J /
/ ~ /D [/1/(>C>C
~
Page 3 of3
........
-,
-..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
....~.~.
THRU:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center Historic Designation,
Major Development (Conceptual) and Demolition of Non-Historic Structures-
Public Hearing continued from November 17, 2004
DATE:
January 12, 2005
SUMMARY: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen requests approval to construct a
Community Center on the property that is currently occupied by L' Auberge.
ro'
'''--
HPC held a work session on this project in February 2004. Discussion centered on the size of a
proposed new structure and its relationship to the small cabins. Following the work session, the
applicant made some adjustments to the plan and had a formal Conceptual hearing on July 14,
2004. The staff recommendation at that meeting was a continuance on the project and removal
of all of the non-historic cabins on the site in order to restore the setting. HPC expressed
continued reservations about the proposed massing. At the time of this proposal, all nine historic
cabins were being retained, in their original locations.
For an October 27th, 2004 meeting, the applicant revisited the entire design, and brought on a
new architect. The plan evolved into two detached structures. A new pre-school building
proposed for the east end of the site displaced three original cabins, which were discussed for off-
site relocation. The concept received positive feedback in terms of improved relationship to the
scale and architectural character of the Main Street District, but there were concerns expressed
about the loss of cabins and obstructing views of the remaining units with new construction. In
addition, a pull in/drop off access from Main Street was debated.
The applicant returned to HPC on November 17th with a plan that did not include a staff memo
due to their late submission. This plan removed another cabin off of the alley, and placed it, and
one of the Third Street cabins, at the front of the site. Two Third Street cabins were still slated
for off-site relocation, two cabins were relocated, and five cabins were preserved in their historic
locations. HPC continued to show some enthusiasm for the overall concept, although staff
expressed regret that the board was discussing further compromises to the historic cabins without
the applicable review criteria before them.
Another revision has been submitted for tonight's discussion, and has been fully evaluated by
staff. In addition, staff referred the project to Debbie Abele, author of Aspen's Historic
Preservation Ordinance and a consultant who has a lot of experience dealing with post-war
c
resources not dissimilar to 435 W. Main Street. Ms. Abele's comments are provided as an
attaclmlent to this memo. In summary, in her evaluation, the most recent plan, which builds on """
the November 17'h scheme, with some important differences, would no longer allow for the .......,/
historic designation of the property. The same number of cabins are retained (7 of 9), however,
all are moved from their original locations. The five cabins that had been retained along the alley
are moved forward to accommodate parking. Four of these five cabins are joined together to
create affordable housing units. The two cabins that were being relocated to the front of the
property are linked to the significantly larger new buildings proposed for the site.
Staff finds that, since the original submittal, this project has evolved into a plan that has
unacceptable impacts to the historic integrity ofthis property. The current proposal cannot
be approved in conjunction with a historic designation of the site because the alterations
that are contemplated, will prohibit the property from meeting the landmark criteria.
Within the staff analysis provided below, we will look back at the earlier drawings and
identify the point at which the proposal crosses the threshold in terms of designation
eligibility. We support a re-visit of this proposal that abandons that plan to locate the pre-
school on the eastern border of the site. If the applicant wished to call the question on the
plans that have been submitted for tonight's meeting, the staff recommendation would be
denial. However, HPC cannot, in fact, approve the project at this time because the public
notice issued in July was for Historic Designation, Major Development, and Demolition of
Non-Historic Cabins. Relocation (on-site or off-site) of existing cabins was not addressed.
Staff finds that the ambiguity as to whether or not the cabins will be designated is becoming
a hindrance to a clear discussion about acceptable alterations to this site. Staff recommends
HPC's first action be a determination with regard to designation, and that a formal vote be
taken on that topic alone at tonight's meeting. This is in the interest of focusing the
discussion on the correct guidelines, and providing beneficial direction from the board.
:>
APPLICANT: Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
Planning Services, and Arthur Chabon, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001.
ADDRESS: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: 0, Office.
CURRENT LAND USE: A 27,000 square foot lot containing 13 lodge units, an office, and a
manager's house.
"""'"
....,;.#
2
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
..,","""
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
......
The significance of the property located at 435 W. Main Street will be evaluated
according to the following criteria:
J. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
/,,,.,~.
Staff Response: According to the Assessor's office, the cabins on this site were built in 1940.
Quoting from the white paper that has been prepared by the Community Development
Department titled, "Aspen's 20th Century
Architecture: Rustic Style Buildings,"
........
Circa Mid_20th Century photo
of 435 W. Main Street
"In Aspen, Colorado, Rustic Style cabins
used as lodges and residences, began to
be built in the 1930's, though the tourism
industry was still in its infancy. The
Waterman Cabins, built in 1937, and
once located at the corner of 7th and
Hallam Streets, have since been
demolished, but were one of Aspen's first
group of small tourist cottages. The
Swiss Chalets (now L'Auberge, and suffering from the
"chalet" misnomer- as they are indeed, in the rustic style)
are located at 435 W. Main Street, and ,were built during
roughly the same period. Prescient, and perhaps with a
nod to the automobile's growing influence in American society, a motor court configuration
at the Chalets allowed guests to drive right up to the individual units."
Staff finds that 435 W. Main Street helps to illustrate the trends related to early development of
_ tourism in Aspen and therefore meets "Criterion A."
.........
,
J
"Criterion B" can be difficult to apply for recent past properties because for the most part they ::)
are associated with persons who are living and whose contributions to history cannot be
evaluated without bias. At present, staff does not have information that would support a finding
that "Criterion B" is met.
The Rustic Style paper defines the distinctive characteristics that must be present in order to meet
"Criterion C." They are:
.
Hand built structures that are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log;
stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. Later
exanlples include machine cut logs.
The buildings are usually single story, with a low-pitched gable roof.
True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be
dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the
irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these
details, though without the chinking.
Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to
finish out the window openings.
Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements.
The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are often infilled with standard
framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space.
The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the
materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal.
:>
.
.
.
.
.
Staff finds that 435 W. Main Street exhibits all of these fundamental characteristics a11d meets
"Criterion c." These small cabins are hand-built, rectangular frame structures with board and
batten siding, which was a common material for the style along with log. Each building has a
chimney and a limited number of small windows.
The property meets two of the three designation criteria, which leaves the question of integrity to
be evaluated. Integrity can be measured through the scoring system that HPC has developed.
Over the last few months, Staff has completed site visits and an initial assessment for all of the
remaining Rustic style buildings constructed during the local period of significance, which has
been identified as pre-World War II until the early 1970's. At least 20 buildings exist in town
that might be considered important within the Rustic style, including residences a11d lodges.
Only four of these properties, 308 Park Avenue, 300 W. Main Street, 501 W. Main Street, and
304 W. Hallam Street, are currently landmarked.
In general the L' Auberge cabins are well preserved. Two are connected together. It is not clear
if this is an original condition or not. It dates from at least 1969 based on aerial photographs.
Staffs integrity assessment for 435 W. Main as a whole is attached, and the conclusion is that the
property warrants 85 out of 100 points, which is above the 75 point minimum requirement. The
least successful aspect of the property's integrity is preservation of the setting, which has been
greatly impacted.
-,
...."....V'
4
,.....
Staff supports landmark designation for this property. For clarification, designations are always
defined by the entire boundary of the property, and not limited to individual structures on a lot, as
is mentioned in the application. HPC may recommend approval or disapproval of the landmark
request, or a continuance for additional information necessary to make a decision. The board may
choose to accept the integrity analysis provided by staff or formulate its own rating for the
property. The property must receive designation in order to be eligible to build a religious
facility, which is a conditional use for landmarks in the Office Zone District.
.........
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
"-'
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing an,d proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the h'eight, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list ofthe relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
It has always been anticipated that, after HPC approval, this project will be reviewed by the
Plruming and Zoning Commission and City Council as a PUD and a Conditional Use. This is
because the new structures likely need variances from setback and height requirements, along
with relief from the parking requirements. (The only one of these variances that HPC crumot
gra11t is height.) A Conditional Use review is required because a religious facility is not allowed
in the Office Zone District, except through a special approval for historically landmarked
properties.
The Community Development Department has been working on new zoning for Main Street
within the Infill discussions, If adopted, the zoning on Main Street would be changed to "Mixed
Use" and would be more permissive than the current restrictions. The application before HPC
might not need as many variances and would also be a permitted use. The applicant is interested
in the flexibility that this change might provide for their project, however the code amendment
has not been adopted, mayor may not be revised, and is not fully flushed out by staff. Staff and
the HPC are obligated to review this project according to the currently effective zoning.
c
5
435 W. Main Street clearly faces a number of redevelopment constraints despite its large size.
About % of the site is occupied by small cabins that HPC would probably not like to see
relocated or obstructed any more than necessary. In addition, according to an agreement made
between the previous property owner and an adjacent neighbor, no development or parking can
take place along the western end of the alley. This restricts an area that would otherwise be a
good location for structure or parking.
:)
Since its initial review, this project has increased in size since, coming within about 2,500 square
feet of the total allowable floor area, which is 20,250 square feet. There is precedent on Main
Street for large buildings, including 7'h and Main Affordable Housing and the new Christiania
Lodge, howev~r this project is particularly challenged by the fact that it needs to be respectful of
historic cabins that are very small.
As noted in the staff summary, the initial concern with this project was an imbalance created by
placing one large building at the western end of the site, The board's suggestion that the mass be
broken up into more than one building, which might been resolved in a few different ways, has
evolved into a proposal which has significant impacts on the ability to call this one of Aspen's
historically important properties.
Throughout the process, the applicant has expanded their program so the building on the west
now appears to be the same size or larger than what was objectionable in the first place. While
there is agreement that this community center will be an important and beneficial addition to
town, there is a high cost in the most recent scheme, which takes away not only the small lodge
use, but also a landmark designation that has been discussed for some time. ~
Staff has provided the packets from previous hearings about this project as an attachment to this
memo. This includes our memos, the drawings, and meeting minutes. Previous staff memos
about this project cited concerns that the project was out of compliance with the Main Street
Historic District guidelines, particularly building setbacks and orientation, massing, and parking,
In general, the project that has developed is no longer in conflict with these guidelines. If this
were simply proposed as infill on a vacant site, there would likely be staff support. The negative
impacts to the existing buildings at 435 W. Main Street are the issue.
New guidelines have been brought into question now, particularly those that deal with building
relocation, and additions to historic buildings. In particular, the following are not met, in staffs
opmlOn:
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative,
o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
.......
,,,,,,,,y
6
o Before a bnilding is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
--
-
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
o An addition that seeks to imply a11 inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
o A I-story COllilector is preferred,
o The COllilector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition a11d the primary
building,
The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary strnctures is
t'" recommended,
"-
7
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ~
o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate, ../
o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
The plan that has been submitted overlooks the importance of the original arrangement of the
cabins and the importance of maintaining them as very small scaled, free-standing structures.
The staff memo written in July included an assessment of this property's integrity score, one of
the prime components of our historic designation process. Staff scored 435 W, Main Street at 85
out of 100 points (a minimum of 75 points is required to be an Aspen landmark.) This score was
not reduced by the July 14, 2004 proposal.
This site is unique because it includes a number of historic stmctures, so there is room for
interpretation on the scoring, However, based on the October 27th, 2004 and November 17, 2004
plans, moving cabins would arguably cause the property to lose up to five points. The current
proposal, which links cabins together and connects two units to the new buildings, pushes the
integrity score down by as many as 15 more points under the categories of "Building Form" and
"Scale." If HPC finds, as staff does, that 435 W. Main Street should be designated historic, this
plan is not acceptable.
In our October 27th memo, staff promoted the idea of compromising, and allowing the applicant
some additional building area by removing the two westermnost cabins along the alley. We still ~
promote a plan of that nature, with the preservation of the remaining historic cabins along the
edge of Third Street, and as much of the alley as possible, The open area in front of the cabins
should ideally be open space and play area for the pre-school. To the extent that a single new
building at the west could be broken up into any detached, or linked forms, as originally
suggested by HPC, this would be very beneficial. There may also be an acceptable plan that
constructs a detached school building in the general area where the 1990's cabins exist now (in
front of the historic structures), if it Cilll be done in a sensitive millmer that is as successful as the
current development and still allows some views through the buildings. Having reviewed several
versions of the concept of the Third Street pre-school building, staff finds its impacts are too
significant and recommends the applicant pursue another direction.
RELOCATION
The public notice for this application only included the proposal to demolish non-historic
construction, There are stringent criteria for demolition, a11d, if the original cabins are
designated, demolishing them would be nearly impossible under the historic preservation
ordinance,
Relocation is slightly more permissible, however, additional noticing would be required, whether
cabins are moved on-site, or off-site. If the cabins moved off-site, HPC would have to find their
new locations to be appropriate.
.......
-....r,,,.
8
--
Although there is not sufficient information presented at this time to make a formal decision on
.
this topic, staff is presenting tile review criteria so that the applicant is aware of what would be
needed in order to gain board support. Relocation shall be approved if HPC finds the
following with regard to the subject structure:
--
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2, It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionallv, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
I. It has been deternlined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
The best way to preserve the historic cabins is to keep them in active use. Their potential to
serve the needs of the Hebrew School program, which is an after-school use that does not occur
on a daily basis seems entirely possible, as is their potential to serve in some way as functional
spaces for the coffee shop/gift shop (which mayor may not be an allowed accessory use on the
property), employee housing, office space, or pre-school functions, The applicant has selected
this property for their project with the understanding that it would not be able to be developed as
a vacant parcel. There will likely have to be some additional flexibility in the way that the
program is approached in order to make this project approvable.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds tllat the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic
Prt;servation Design Guidelines" have not been sufficiently met with regard to the height, scale,
massing and proportions of the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center and that further
discussion between the applicant and board is needed.
Staff recommends that the cabins along Third Street, and as many as possible along the alley, be
required to remain in place and free standing. The pre-school structure should be relocated to the
western end of the property, or possibly along Main Street, in place of the 1990's cabins if this
can be accomplished with sensitivity to the cabins along the alley.
t"""
'-'
9
Staff recommends that HPC make a formal recommendation as to the historic designation of 435
W. Main Street in order to resolve this aspect of the discussion. This recommendation should be
sent on to City Council as a separate action in order to avoid additional ambiguity about the
landmark status as the project moves through the City's review process.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Major Development (Conceptual) and
Demolition of Non-Historic Buildings review for 435 W. Main Street to a date certain. I move to
adopt Resolution # _' Series of2005 supporting historic designation of 435 W. Main Street."
Exhibits:
Resolution # _, Series of 2005
A. Relevant guidelines
B. Referral comments prepared by Debbie Abele
C, Current application
D, Previous applications, memos and minutes
10
:)
:)
........,
...,,,~~'
To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Thru: Joyce Allagier, Deputy Community Development Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
From: Debbie Abele, Akros, Inc.
Historic Preservation Consulting
Re: 435 W. Main Street, Aspen - Proposed redevelopment and associated
impact upon the eligibility of the historic tourist complex located on the
site.
Date: December 31,2004
Introduction:
I have reviewed the submittal materials, staff reports and HPC meeting minutes
for the request by the Jewish Resource Center for an approval to construct a
Community Center on the property that is currently occupied by L'Auberge. The
following is my analysis of the effect that the various proposed plans will have on
the preservation of the historic resources on the site, their integrity and,
subsequently, their eligibility for designation on the Aspen Historic Inventory of
Landmarks Sites and Structures.
,
It should be noted that currently, the complex has been determined eligible for
designation under Criteria "A" as illustrative of the early Western tourist motor
courts and trends related to the development of tourism in Aspen.
Architecturally, under Criteria "C," the buildings are considered important as one
of the best remaining complexes of Rustic Architecture in Aspen.
Background and Analysis of Redevelopment Proposals:
Following a February work session with the HPC, an application was made for
conceptual approval of a plan which included new construction limited to
approximately 35% of the western portion of the block. All nine of the historic
cabins were left intact in their original location. At the July 14th 2004 HPC
hearing on the item, the issues raised were primarily related to the scale of the
new construction and its relationship to the historic cabins, the need for an
entrance off Main Street and the location of parking. The item was continued.
In my opinion, the implementation of this plan would meet the preservation
goals for the site by retaining all nine original cabin buildings as well as the
historic pattern and arrangement of the complex. Clearly distinct from the new
construction, the significance or integrity of the historic complex would only be
r slightly comprised. Consequently, it would remain eligible for designation.
"-
On October 27th 2004 a revised plan was reviewed by the HPC. To address the
concerns raised about the size and scale of the new construction, two new
detached buildings were proposed along the east end of the block as. well as the
west end instead of one larger building. To accomplish this plan, however it
would require that two of the original cabins be demolished. Non-historic cabins
along Main Street also would be removed to help increase the visibility of the
historic cabins along the alley. The item was continued again.
:)
While this alternative addresses some of the compatibility issues related to
integrating the new construction with the historic features of the site and the
character of Main Street, it does so by allowing the destruction of two historic
buildings. Despite the losses, this might not jeopardize the ability to designate
the property as seven buildings or over 75% of the historic construction are
retained and a remnant of the historic auto court pattern has been saved. The
actual design of the new buildings and their visual prominence in "book-ending"
the block may, in fact, obscure this pattern from the public right-of-way.
On November 17th 2004 the applicant submitted a further revised proposal for
an informal review by the HPC. This submittal did not have the benefit of staff
analysis and the preparation of an associated report prior to its presentation to
the HPC. The revised plan continued to propose the demolition of two of the
historic cabins. In addition it called for the relocation of two other cabins.
~
This proposal further diminishes the significance and integrity of the block by
destroying the pattern of building which makes the complex historically
significant. Further, it only advances the preservation goals of 50% of the extant
resources on the block. If implemented, in my opinion, the complex would no
longer be eligible for designation.
Another revised proposal was submitted on December 28th 2004. This
proposal substantially erodes and, conceivably, would eliminate the historic
character and significance of the tourist cabin complex altogether. Complete
demolition is still planned for two of the historic cabins as well as the relocation
for two other cabins. However, with this plan the relocated cabins are now
attached to the new buildings. Moving the buildings and the loss of their
appearance as free-standing structures essentially destroys the historic character
and significance of these two buildings. Four more cabins are slated for
substantial alterations by connecting them to one another to create two larger
housing units. Cabins along the alley are also placed in new locations, disrupting
the historic auto court pattern and changing their form and appearance, all of
which would significantly compromise their integrity. With this proposal only one
of the nine historic cabins would be preserved in its original form but it would be
moved from its historic location. Clearly this proposal does not meet the City's
I
~i
........f
-
---
preservation's goals for historic properties as all nine cabins are either
demolished, substantially altered or relocated. With the obliteration of the
historic buildings and/or their architectural character, the complex would no
longer be eligible for designation.
Please feel free to call me if you have questions or need clarifications about my
analysis or recommendations. I can be reached at 480 774-2907 or bye-mail at
dabele@phxinternet.net
rt~ i1<~
fD~ Sewi<;u
~
.."./
<$'"" 3613 ,,44ft-, ~ 5'1612
P~/'?= (970)920-1125
~~.ttet
December 28, 2004
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: REVISED DRAWINGS FOR ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNIIT CENTER
Dear Amy,
Accompanying this letter are ten (10) copies of the revised site plan, floor plans, and
elevations for the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center, to be located along Main
Street, between Third and Fourth Streets.
Since our original submission to the City in June, we have met with the HPC on July 14, ~
October 27, and November 17. We have listened carefully to the input we received from .....;
the HPC and the public and the project's design has evolved in a positive direction over the
last 6 months. The drawings we are submitting today represent the culmination of this
process.
Because we have already submitted a complete application to the City, this submission does
not include all of the exhibits and other technical materials previously provided. However,
to give a context for this application, a brief summary of the need for the Aspen Jewish
Community Center is repeated below.
The Need for a Community Center in Aspen
The Jewish Resource Center has been providing programming to meet important
educational and social needs of residents of and visitors to Aspen and the Roaring Fork
Valley since March of 2000. Religious services, special events, and classes for children and
adults have been held at a variety of locations around Aspen, including hotels, lecture halls,
and commercial spaces. Interest in these programs has been strong and growing, but as of
yet the programs have not had a home of their own.
As enthusiasm for the programs has grown, community members have come to recognize
the need for a focal point for Jewish life; an institution that can provide fulfilling
programming and a comprehensive range of services and facilities for the surrounding area. "'"""
..j
Ms. Amy Guthrie
,.- December 28, 2004
___ Page Two
The purpose of this application is to fill this void by developing a full service community
center that will provide year-round programming for toddlers, children, teens, and adults,
including both Jewish persons and members of the broader community. Programming will
be offered in a variety of social/cultural facilities, including a sanctuary, auditorium, library,
religious school, and day care center.
Major Design Elements
Our revised design builds upon two key suggestions made during the HPC meetings. First,
it was suggested that the newer cabins could be removed to create an open courtyard in the
middle of the block and to provide a better transition between the new buildings and the
small scale of the original cabins. Second, it was suggested that we consider creating a
campus feel for the property by integrating the cabins into the project and by breaking the
mass of the new building into smaller forms. By comparing the original design to the revised
design, we can see how these ideas have led to a new vision for the property.
In our original design, we proposed a single building located along the western side of the
property that would have encompassed all of the proposed uses. In the current proposal
we propose two distinct buildings. The building on the western side of the property will
contain the sanctuary, auditorium, library, and administration spaces. The building along
Third Street will contain the religious school and the day care facilities.
A second major change in the design is with respect to the parking/drop off area that is so
important for the school/day care uses. In our original design, we proposed head-in parking
along Fourth Street. When this was not supported by the HPC, we proposed the drop-off
area instead be located off Main Street. This approach was not acceptable to the City
Engineer. Therefore, in our revised plan we propose to have approximately 8 spaces off the
alley, behind the cabins.
One outcome of making these significant changes to the site plan is that we must relocate
the original cabins. These cabins are not designated as historic landmarks today, although
it is anticipated that they will be so designated at the conclusion of this process.
The site plan shows that seven (7) of the nine (9) original cabins are proposed to remain on-
site. Two (2) of the original cabins would be relocated off site, to a location still to be
determined. We hereby commit that these cabins will be relocated and will not be
demolished. We are currently working with several individuals who have expressed interest
in reusing these cabins. We agree to provide HPC with a formal proposal for the
relocations of these cabins at the time of our final HPC submission. Should there be any
interest on the part of the City or any other governmental or non-profit organization to use
these cabins, we would be more than willing to work to accomplish that end. Otherwise, we
will find one or two private parties who will put these two cabins to good use.
-
'"'
Ms. Amy Guthrie
December 28, 2004
Page Three
:)
Five (5) of the seven (7) cabins that are planned to remain on-site would be located parallel
to the alley. These would be moved forward (toward Main Street) by approximately 20', to
create room for parking behind the cabins. A link is proposed between cabins 3 and 4 and
between cabins 6 and 7, to make the resulting structures large enough to serve as affordable
housing for employees of the Jewish Center. The fifth cabin in this area will be a lodge-type
unit. It will be used for transient housing for visiting rabbis, lecturers, and similar persons.
The other two (2) on-site cabins would be moved to the front of the property, along Main
Street, creating a visible street presence for these structures. One cabin would be the
reception area and entry hall for the sanctuary/auditorium building, while the other would
be the reception area and office for the school building. Each cabin is proposed to be
connected to the building that it serves.
The total square footage of the project has grown from the original submission, although it
is essentially the same as has been discussed with HPC over the last several months. The
project now contains approximately 25,515 sq. ft. of floor area, equating to a floor area ratio
of nearly 0.95:1. Elements of the project that have grown since the original submission
include the classrooms (expanded to comply with State standards), the lobbies and
circulation areas, and the auditorium.
:)
Conformance to HPC Guidelines
We have taken a fresh look at the City's adopted Historic Preservation Guidelines and
believe the revised project complies with these guidelines for the following reasons:
1. It preserves the Main Street Historic District's street plan by not introducing head-in
parking to this block. (guideline 12.2)
2. It provides a walk to the primary building entry from the sidewalk, a feature that was
lacking in the original submission. (guideline 12.5)
3. It provides 5' front and side yard setbacks that are similar to those of neighboring
properties and are consistent with the setbacks that have been present on this
property in the past. (guidelines 12.8, 12.10, 12.11 and 12.12)
4.
It subdivides the overall mass of the project into two distinct modules by splitting it
into separate buildings on either corner of the property. Furthermore, each of the
buildings has the appearance of being composed of smaller modules through the use
of materials, fenestration, and building inflection. The height and mass of both
buildings step down from the corner to the middle of the property, until the height
of the space that would be connected to the historic cabins would be virtually
identical to that of the small cabins. (guidelines 12.14 and 12.15)
-..,
,,".-
Ms. Amy Guthrie
!"" December 28, 2004
'"' Page Four
Overall, the height of the proposed buildings is much lower than the original
submission, with the exception of the sanctuary space, which remains appropriately
prominent and awe-inspiring.
5. It preserves the existing mature landscaping, including the lilac bushes along the alley
and the large spruce tree in the southwestern corner of the property. (guideline 1.10,
1.11 and 1.13)
By relocating the sidewalk and detaching it from the curb along Main Street, the
traditional approach preferred in the guidelines can be achieved, whereby there is a
front yard next to the building, then there is a sidewalk, the irrigation ditch, and a
planting strip as one moves out toward Main Street. This should allow the mature
trees located along Main Street to be preserved, and will provide room to move any
smaller trees that will be displaced by the new sidewalk closer to the front of the site.
Any trees that must be removed to make way for the development will be replaced
with new trees in a manner that complies with the formula found in the City's tree
removal ordinance.
6. It maintains the historic irrigation ditch as an open landscape feature along Main
Street, although it will be culverted where it crosses the sidewalk and driveway.
(guideline 1.17)
Historic Designation Process
The applicant remains supportive of the City's efforts to designate this property as a historic
landmark (H). We want to be clear, however, that we are not the proponents of this
designation. Nevertheless, we recognize that the City has determined that this property is
eligible for designation and we will work with City to facilitate this outcome. The applicant
does not anticipate at this time that he will be seeking any particular benefits from HPC for
the designation.
Instead, we are anticipating that this application will follow the guidelines of the proposed
Mixed Use (MU) zone district. We only learned of this proposal during a recent meeting
with staff, and it is our understanding that it will be considered by the City Council early in
2005. We have studied this proposal and decided to use its parameters to design this
project. The project's proposed floor area, height, and setbacks would all comply with the
dimensional standards of this new zone avoiding the need for us to request variations of any
of the dimensional standards. Moreover, the worship, school, and day care uses would all
be allowed uses in this new zone. So we look forward to the City's adoption of this zone
early in 2005, which will enable us to submit a land use application for this project.
.-
---
Ms. Amy Guthrie
December 28, 2004
Page Five
Conclusion
In summary, the applicant has shown a willingness to work with staff and HPC to achieve
our objectives in a way that satisfies the major concerns of the HPC. We continue to be
willing to do so, but we are hopeful the HPC will be ready to approve the current proposal.
We look forward to reviewing these plans with the HPC at the continued public hearing on
January 12. Please let me know if there is anything else you will require for the hearing.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
,4,~ ad
Alan Richman, AlCP
J
~
:)
_~_~.,,"O""'-
8
N
,.;
N
.
D
E
.
o
.
o
b
!<
;..
.
o
~
c
o
.
.
.
.
.
~
c
.
.
w
o
.
u
~
;
E
E
o
u
~
,
.
".
<
.
o
.
<
c
U
w
C
z
u
<
<
z
o
.
<
r
u
"
o
r
c
<
.
<
8
N
~
.
D
E
.
o
.
o
b
!<
.
.
o
<J>
<
o
.
.
.
w
<
,
o
~
<
.
u
c
,
E
E
o
v .~
< .
~ ~
.-
. 0
"0
< 0
. .
o 0
.. >"
< .
,-
o
w
~
r
o
"
.
z
o
.
.
z
o
<
"
z
~
"
<
"---~''''''''''~~.,,,
8
N
N
N
'-';~
.
D
E
.
o
.
o
b
!<
;..
.
.
o
~
c
o
.
.
.
w
<
~
o
Z
~
<
.
u
c
,
E
E
o
u
<
.
;:-,
~~
<
.
"
.
c("
~
o
"'
~
r
o
"
.
z
o
m
<
r
u
"
"
z
~
"
<
<<
~
<-:
J,33cLLS p.J:[
".
/
~/
i::
~
~
E-i
if.)
Z '\
H 1.1
~
~
.,
..
..
....In
.
" "I>
..' .,\OJ
.., u1 \.
I
!
....___.u_~_
Iru
:1
I
11\)'\ 1:"111
11')'Oj
I' I'
g 0:/ II
.. II I,
:1 II
II I II
G Ii !J Ii
I~,,~t II
I \(j !
I II
/g 8 I ,I
.. I I
I I
,
I i
I \)OJ i'
. @ I ~Oj :1
.. ;( ~ I:
I H i
i! ",to", n" ~ I,
.. 'II:;[d).JV S I'
/" G ":1', I
__JI1910
I, .. I
Ii 't
: I 1'-~
I /1Oj~r~---
II
-) Ii
, Ii
II />'"
,,'" tti, .
: : \
, , \
i.LN~SV3 I / I
""""",.)1/ 1,-___
./~'/
@
,-
..
.
~
~:::--
--------- --
~__ l'-..
---~j
/911 J,33'tLLS/Q:rv
.
o
o
N
N
N
"
w
.
~
w
u
w
o
"
w
~
Z
w
U
...
~
z
" z
~ 0
~ ~ ~
u - ,
o .
r z 0
~ 0 N
3 U .11
W ~ _
..., z ..
% ~ w
w ~ ~
0_<
<J> X U
< W <J>
~ 00
W _
W 0
a:: 0 ....i
~ - W
~ , ...
r ...
:;; ~ ::
N .. N
~ ~
~ "
~ 0 ~
W _
~ ... N
o ~ N
N W _
N Z N
~
U
W
~
r
U
~
<
Z
o
m
.
"
u
~
"
"
~
~
.
<<
o
0'
('
..L~~C!..LS P.."IG
. . . . . . , . . . . , . . , . ,
. , . . ..-..... . , . . . . . . . .
. . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
. . . . . , . , . . , . . . . . .
i:
i,
i'
,.
I',
I . .
I.....
I. . .
I' . .
I'....
I
0,
~~
~~
~.
o
..""'1-5t""......----
x.
............_____-I_ __
<J!
O!O
""....'
'"
~e-
,
I
,
I
ii
!i
----'------.---.-~-----_'l
'n
"-
jJ
1j
.'
, 'i
,.
~1.
;).
"
q'
w
,,~,.
~
:::::::::~
x
w
__________ii! ::::::::::::::~
ii
ii
ii
,-
x,
zffi
W:r'I:
~wo
x~~
~.sJlUiii
S()6[
\)1>
",0,
1
.'
I
I
I \)'"
I ,,,OJ
,
I
.1
I
...,
','1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
co
o
0\
:I: "
~
,\OJ\)Oj
)-
W
--1
--1
<(
1910
,">
19
w
z
:i
,
o
:-;;'\.
"OJ,
T
o
o
N
N
N
"
w
~
~
w
u
w
o
"
w
...
z
w
U
>-
~
z
"
~ z
~ .
0 ~ 0
u ~
" " 0
~ 0 N
0
~ ~
w ~
~ 0 "
z z w
w 0 ~
0 u .
~ w U
< ~ <J>
~ m
w -
w 0
~ 0 ~
~ - w
~ ~
" >-
~ z m
~ ~
N ~ N
~
~ "
~ 0 ~
w >- -
~ N
0 ~ N
N W
N Z N
~
u
w
...
"
u
"
.
z
o
m
.
"
u
~
"
"
~
~
<
<<
00'
('
\)1>
,,,OJ
, . , . . . , '," . . . , . . . .
. , . . , , , . , . , . .
. . . . , . . . , . . , . . . .
. . ", . . . . . , . , . , . . ,
I
" I I I
I.' h 8fu ~;
j,' *"
X' X'
i'. " "
0 0 0
I',
,',
I.'.'.
,I
,I
, i
r, i
r'i \)'"
[. i"'OJ
~ ' i
! "
I-
ill
W
oL
I-
0)
Z
<(
"
Q)
o
0\
:I:'"
~
~!
>-,
~I
I
.+
I
I
I
I
- ~ ----.- - -
.i
I
. \)OJ
, ",0,
, )-
"'~m~
I --1
! ",<(
I
,
i
L...
. "
.....___+......J-. , . .
. . . .
~~
~~
~~
X ,
"~~
~O-t Q-<;l
=llnl!! 6-0
~~
'0
~N
~~
[0
ON
~w
'"
.5,..,-, L..
...~-oc'a'i'....
!!l~S
~3~
X
lD~
~~
"!
o
I.
,-
x,
ifiifi
o~
-~~
"'''<.
S()6[
)L
.J
~D1
DWZ
lfit::O
w'l:>=
1fl1O<(
'5=>0
W\fl::J
Il'WIL
ILIOIL
DO<(
Z>-W
<(Z>-
\[)9~
Z>-<(W
o:a1!
0=>IflD
Ifl~ll'll'
~~ZOlL~~
O<("Z<(
Z..J v::>..J
1910
X
~
~
~
.
o
o
N
N
N
~
w
m
~
w
U
w
o
"
w
~
Z
w
u
>-
~
z
"
~ z
~ .
0 ~
u ~ 0
" 0
" 0
~ 0 N
~ ~
w ~
0
z z w
w " ~
0 0 .
~ " u
< " <J>
~ ~
w _
w 0
~ 0
~ - ~
<J> ~
" >-
~ z m
00 ~
~ ;:,( ;:
~ ~
~ 0 ~
~ >- .....
o ~ N
N W
N Z N
~
u
W
~
"
u
"
<
z
o
m
.
"
u
"
"
"
...
"
.
MEMORANDUM
,.,.",.,
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
205 S. Mill Street, Louis Vuitton- Minor Development, Public Hearing
DATE:
January 12,2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is an 18,000 square foot lot containing a structure,
called the Mill Street Plaza Building, that was built in 1982. The site is located within
the Commercial Core Historic District and therefore exterior building alterations are
subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
HPC is asked to grant Minor Development approval for replacement of the existing
storefronts in Louis Vuitton's new space. This work, and the applicant's proposed new
awnings and signage, are eligible for staff approval through a "Certificate of No Negative
Effect," however staff was unable to make a finding that all of the relevant design
guidelines were being met, at least with regard to the new doors and windows, therefore
the project is referred to the full board. Staff is prepared to approve the proposed awnings
and signage on behalf of HPC, after they have been accepted by the Zoning Officer per
the sign code.
APPLICANT: Louis Vuitton, tenant, representedby Brand + Allen Architects.
PARCEL In: 2737-073-38-004.
ADDRESS: 205 S. Mill Street, Lots D-I, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: Commercial Core, "CC."
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
-
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal materials and prepares a report that analy.zes the project's conformance with
the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the
reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The
HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the
application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the
Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC
decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner witlzin three
hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth
in Chapter 26.316.
--.,
Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve new storefronts to be installed within
the existing bays that define the tenant's new space. A list of the design guidelines
relevant to this Minor Review is attached as "Exhibit A."
For the most part, this building has consistent fenestration along the Mill Street and
Hopkins A venue facades. The relationship of the window sills to grade changes as the
site slopes towards the north, but in general, the streetfacing storefronts are of an identical
design and color and feature single entry doors, vertical mullions, a band of transom
windows, and brick below the windows, like a historic kickplate.
The application proposes to replace some storefronts facing Mill Street with large,
undivided display windows that reach grade, along with taller glass doors. Along the
pedestrian walkway into the courtyard, the size of the existing glazed area is maintained,
but four doors are to be removed, and the new windows are to be obsured with a semi-
transparent film and/or replaced with mirror.
-
If the Mill Street Plaza were proposed as a new building today, HPC might prefer to see a
different resolution of the grade issues, particularly along Hopkins Avenue, than was
constructed, and a design that appeared to be more like a collection of smaller buildings.
This could be achieved through variations in massing, materials, design features, etc.
Staff does not find that this goal will be met successfully now by inserting a variety of
storefronts in what is perceived as one large structure. The Mill Street elevation is a
fairly successful reflection of some of the basic characteristics of the historic storefronts
on the adj acent Wheeler Opera House, as well as the 19th century buildings across the
street from this project. Staff is hesitant to approve altering the windows in one tenant's
space, so that they are distinctly different than the rest of this fayade. Our concerns center
on the following guidelines related to the "Commercial Core Historic District":
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian
activity.
o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts
should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows
and transoms.
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services
are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" ,entrances are
inappropriate.
,'"'""
2
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along
a block.
o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate
amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be
maintained by the upper floor(s).
o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows,
cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be
some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements.
These guidelines suggest that some patterns, for instance the band of transom windows
included on this building as a nod to the district, are important and should be maintained.
In addition, the scale of the storefront should generally be broken down through the use of
transoms, mullions, kickplates, or other traditional features per 13.16. In staffs opinion,
this is not occurring in the proposed design.
HPC does encourage contemporary interpretation of the traditional design features found
in the district, and Staff recommends that the applicant balance the discussion provided in
13 .15 with a restudy of the Mill Street facing windows to be more consistent in design
with the adjacent fenestration on that side of the building.
We have somewhat less concern with the windows along the pedestrian walkway, which
relate more to the treatment of the interior courtyard than to the traditional commercial
development pattern. We would be in favor of approving the use of a semi-transparent
film on the windows, and mirrored glass onlv in that location based on the guideline
below:
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
D. Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper
story windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper
levels tlrrough detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
......
,
~
.......
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Minor Development approval
for Louis Vuitton at 205 S. Mill Street with the following conditions:
I. Restudy the Mill Street facing windows to be more consistent in design with the
adjacent fenestration on that side of the building, for review and approval by staff
and HPC monitor.
2. Pending acceptance by the Zoning Officer, the proposed signage and awnings will
be reviewed and approved by HPC staff.
3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
4. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
--
,.-.....
4
"Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines, 205 S. Mill Street, Louis Vuitton- Minor
.". Review"
'''-
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
o Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
o Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
o Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on
larger buildings.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width
to buildings seen historically.
o Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features
to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design,
facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered.
These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that
tlle composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
o A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as
products of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
o The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian
activity.
o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts
should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows
and transoms.
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services
are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper
story windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper
levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an
important feature in this relationship.
'~
5
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along
a block.
o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate
anlount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be
maintained by the upper floor(s).
o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
-.,
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows,
cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be
some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements.
14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.
o Signs should not obscure historic building details.
o Small scale signs, mounted on the building, are encouraged.
o Free-standing signs should not be so large as to obscure the patterns of front facades
and yards.
14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically.
o Painted wood and metal are appropriate.
o Plastic and highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
..........
.....,'
14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize
architectural features.
o Position signs to emphasize established architectural elements. It is best to mount
signs so they fit within "frames" created by components of the facade design.
o Pay particular attention to placing new signs on existing buildings when renovating.
The signs should not obscure existing details.
14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs.
o These add visual interest to the street.
......
6